Final answer:
Judges consider agency's discretionary acts through the lens of judicial activism or judicial restraint, with political views also influencing their decisions. Judicial activism involves defense of individual rights, possibly leading to intervention in agency actions, whereas judicial restraint involves deferment to elected government branches.
Step-by-step explanation:
When judges consider an agency's discretionary acts, they apply different philosophies and standards of review. Some judges believe in judicial activism, where they actively defend individual rights and liberties, and may intervene to prevent actions and laws they view as infringing on these rights. This approach can lead to examining the discretionary acts of agencies through a lens focused on expanding personal liberty, justice, and equality. On the other hand, judges who adhere to judicial restraint typically defer decisions to the elected branches of government, maintaining a narrower interpretation of the Bill of Rights and showing less inclination to challenge legislative or executive actions as unconstitutional. Political views can also influence how justices assess these acts. Judges appointed by different political parties may have varying leanings on issues like labor and economic regulation, civil rights, criminal justice, environmental protection, and more. Courts accused of activism are often criticized for overstepping their bounds into the territories of the legislative and executive branches. However, as Justice Anthony Kennedy remarked, perceptions of activism are often influenced by whether or not an individual agrees with the court's decision.